Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, lines 7-8 recite the limitation “wherein rotation of the pivot plate provides rotation to the leg assemblies between an open and a closed state”, rendering the claim generally indefinite and unclear. Via the disclosure it is understood that the platform (100, fig 1) may include two leg assemblies (110, fig 1) which may be rotatably or pivotably coupled to the platform by one or more stationary plates 112. The current claim language suggests that rotation of a single pivot plate can rotate more than one leg assembly. Applicant may consider amending the claim language similar to that in claim 1 (“at least one leg assembly”), or claiming at least one pivot plate per leg assembly, so as to more clearly claim what is actually disclosed by the applicant.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required. Dependent claims not directly named are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grebinoski et al. (US 8,042,653).
Grebinoski et al. disclose
1. A portable work platform (200, figure 2, see below) comprising:
a top surface (deck assembly 150, figure 2, see below); and
at least one leg assembly (1a, figure 2, see below) pivotably coupled (@ 45, figure 9A) to the top surface (figure 9A) and including:
an upper leg (3, figure 3), and
a lower leg (2) telescopically couplable to the upper leg (figure 3) at any of a plurality of selectable locations (23, figure 6A).
10. The portable work platform of claim 1, wherein the top surface (150) comprises one or more exterior slats (120, figure 2) and one or more interior slats (120b) slidingly engageable to form the top surface (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melton et al. (US 2022/0003008).
Melton et al. disclose:
1. A portable work platform (10, fig 2) comprising:
a top surface (12); and
at least one leg assembly (14, fig 2) pivotably coupled (@ 38, fig 2) to the top surface (fig 2) and including:
an upper leg (see below), and
a lower leg (see below) telescopically couplable to the upper leg at any of a plurality of selectable locations ([0033]; see below)
PNG
media_image2.png
598
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
268
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2. The portable work platform of claim 1, wherein each of the upper and lower legs includes one or more holes for receiving a removable peg for fixing the relative position of the upper and lower legs ([0033], see above).
4. The portable work platform of claim 1, wherein the at least one leg assembly comprises: one or more braces matable (via bolts ) with the upper leg (see below); and
one or more support steps (22) matable (via bolts) with the one or more braces and a plurality of upper legs (figure 1B).
PNG
media_image4.png
543
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
7. The portable work platform of claim 1, wherein the at least one leg assembly (14) includes a bumper (40, 44) mounted to a side thereof (see fig 2 inserted above).
8. The portable work platform of claim 7, wherein the bumper a textured top surface (fig 5D) formed of a grip material ([0025]).
PNG
media_image5.png
449
996
media_image5.png
Greyscale
9. The portable work platform of claim 1, further comprising:
a stationary plate coupled to the top surface (see below)
a pivot plate (38, fig 4A) rotatably coupled to the stationary plate (fig 4A); and
an upper peg (61, see below) insertable through the stationary plate and the pivot plate (see below) for securing the pivot plate at a defined angle (see below), wherein the pivot plate (38) is coupled to at least one leg assembly (see below), and wherein rotation of the pivot plate (38) rotates the at least one leg assembly (14) between an open (fig 8, below) and a closed position (fig 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
441
825
media_image6.png
Greyscale
11. A portable work platform (10, fig 2, see below) comprising:
a top surface (12, fig 2);
a stationary plate coupled to the top surface (see fig 8 above);
a pivot plate (38) rotatably coupled to the stationary plate (see fig 8 above);
an upper peg (61) insertable through the stationary plate and the pivot plate for securing the pivot plate at a defined angle (see fig 8 above); and
a plurality of leg assemblies (fig 2, see below) coupled to the pivot plate, wherein rotation of the pivot plate provides rotation to the leg assemblies between an open (fig 8) and a closed state (fig 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
598
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
12. The portable work platform of claim 11, wherein the pivot plate (38) comprises a peg notch (66, fig 9) mateable with the upper peg (61) for securing the pivot plate at the defined angle (fig 8).
13. The portable work platform of claim 12, wherein the peg notch (66, fig 9) defines the defined angle between 90° and 105° from the top surface ([0006], [0019]; fig 8).
14. The portable work platform of claim 12, wherein the pivot plate (38) further comprises a raised, rounded portion through which a pin or axel (62, fig 7) is inserted for rotation (fig 7).
15. The portable work platform of claim 11, wherein the plurality of leg assemblies comprise:
an upper leg defining an interior slot (see below);
a lower leg insertable into the interior slot of the lower leg (see below); and
a lower peg insertable through the upper leg and the lower leg for securing the lower leg in place at a set height ([0033]).
PNG
media_image2.png
598
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
268
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton et al. alone. While Melton et al. does not disclose the spacing of the holes in the legs, examiner notes that this would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in MPEP 2144.04 IV, A. Changes in Size/Proportion "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.; and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that spacing the holes too far apart may not provide enough incremental adjustment options, or allow for finite adjustment; and facing the holes too close together could weaken the leg by excess removal of material, or could cause unnecessarily difficult adjustment moving from one hole to the next. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to space the holes in the legs, with whatever spacing allows for easy and adequate adjustment, without drastically altering the strength of the leg.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melton et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Moreno Moncada (US 2020/0048962).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Melton et al. disclose wherein the at least one leg assembly comprises one or more feet (19, fig 2) matable (fitted around) with the lower leg (fig 2); but fails to disclose the foot comprising a textured bottom formed of a grip material, specifically neoprene.
However, Moreno Moncada teach: the foot (160, figure 14A) comprising a textured bottom (figure 14A) formed of a grip material, specifically neoprene ([0040]).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
817
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the feet of Melton et al. to have a textured bottom, to be formed of a grip material, such as neoprene, as taught by Moreno Moncado, so as to advantageously reduce and/or eliminate any relative slipping and or sliding motion between the leg assemblies and the support surface, improving stability of the apparatus (Moreno Moncado, [0040]).
Re: claim 16, Melton et al. disclose further comprising: one or more feet (19, fig 2) matable (fitted around) with the lower leg (fig 2), and one or more bumpers (40, 44, fig 2) matable (fitted around) with the upper leg (fig 2) comprising a textured top surface (fig 5D) formed of the grip material ([0025, see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
449
996
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Melton does disclose textured surface and grip material for the bumpers, it is not specifically disclosed for the feet.
However, Moreno Moncada teach: the feet (160, figure 14A) comprising a textured bottom (figure 14A) formed of a grip material ([0040]).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
817
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the feet of Melton et al. to have a textured bottom and to be formed of a grip material, as taught by Moreno Moncado, so as to advantageously reduce and/or eliminate any relative slipping and or sliding motion between the leg assemblies and the support surface, improving stability of the apparatus (Moreno Moncado, [0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634